Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
James Bigler et al., Appellants, v. Oliver W. Barnes, Respondent, 1874 — 56 N.Y. 654 · caselaw · US
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
James Bigler et al., Appellants, v. Oliver W. Barnes, Respondent
56 N.Y. 654·New York Court of Appeals·1874·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
James Bigler et al., Appellants, v. Oliver W. Barnes, Respondent.
(Argued April 10, 1874;
decided April 21, 1874.)
This was an action to recover for a quantity of timber alleged to have been sold to defendant. The answer was that the timber was purchased by defendant as agent for the Boston, Hartford and Erie Railroad Company, which was known to the plaintiffs at the time of the purchase, and that they gave the credit to said company. It was tried before a referee, who found in favor of plaintiffs. The General Term reversed the judgment on the law and the facts. The principal part of the testimony was extracts from books of account, letters and other memoranda in writing.
The court here held, that while usually much weight was to he given to the findings of a referee on questions of fact, yet, that as written testimony has no different aspect in one court than another, and as it indicated clearly that plaintiffs dealt with the company and looked to it for payment, the referee’s findings of fact and the conclusion of law therefrom, that defendant was personally liable, were erroneous.
Amasa J. Parker for the appellants.
Milton A. Fowler for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Folger, J.,]
Folger, J.,
reads for affirmance of order and judgment absolute for defendant.
All concur.
Order affirmed and judgment accordingly.